Cesarean delivery: Surgical technique - UpToDate https://www.uptodate.com/contents/cesarean-delivery-surgical-technique/...

Official reprint from UpToDate®

www.uptodate.com ©2018 UpToDate, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

Cesarean delivery: Surgical technique

Author: Vincenzo Berghella, MD

Section Editor: Charles J Lockwood, MD, MHCM
Deputy Editor: Vanessa A Barss, MD, FACOG

All topics are updated as new evidence becomes available and our peer review process is complete.
Literature review current through: Apr 2018. | This topic last updated: Mar 02, 2018.

INTRODUCTION — As with most surgical procedures, there is no standard technique for cesarean delivery. The following discussion will review each step in the procedure and provide evidence-based recommendations for
surgical technique, when these data are available. In many cases, small absolute differences in outcome among surgical techniques are not clinically important; in these settings, time and cost savings assume greater
importance [1].

Other aspects of cesarean delivery are reviewed separately:

● (See "Cesarean delivery: Preoperative planning and patient preparation".)

● (See "Anesthesia for cesarean delivery".)

● (See "Cesarean delivery: Postoperative issues".)

● (See "Repeat cesarean delivery".)

● (See "Cesarean delivery on maternal request".)

OPENING THE ABDOMEN — The advantages and disadvantages of various incisions and the procedure for opening the abdomen from skin to peritoneum are generally the same as for and open abdominal surgery. (See
"Incisions for open abdominal surgery".)

Skin incision

Choice of incision — For most patients, we prefer a transverse skin incision since it is associated with a better cosmetic appearance and possibly less postoperative pain and hernia formation than the vertical midline
skin incision [2-4]. Although we rarely perform a vertical midline incision, we often select this approach when:

● The incision-to-delivery time is critical

● A transverse incision may not provide adequate exposure

● The patient has a bleeding diathesis and thus is at increased risk of subcutaneous or subfascial hematoma formation

Transverse incisions — Two common transverse incisions for cesarean delivery are the Pfannenstiel type and the Joel-Cohen type incisions (eg, Misgav Ladach) (figure 1).

● The Pfannenstiel skin incision is slightly curved, 2 to 3 cm above the symphysis pubis, with the midportion of the incision within the clipped area of the pubic hair.

● The Joel-Cohen type incision is straight, 3 cm below the line that joins the anterior superior iliac spines, and slightly more cephalad than Pfannenstiel [5].

In meta-analyses of randomized trials of surgical incisions for cesarean delivery, the Joel-Cohen type incision had significant short-term advantages compared with the Pfannenstiel incision, including lower rates of fever,
postoperative pain, and use of analgesia; less blood loss; and shorter operating time (overall and incision-to-delivery) and hospital stay [6-8]. In two trials (411 women) comparing the incisions, the Joel-Cohen incision
resulted in a 65 percent reduction in postoperative febrile morbidity (relative risk [RR] 0.35, 95% CI 0.14-0.87) and a 45 percent reduction in postoperative analgesic requirements (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40-0.76), as well as
shorter incision to delivery time (mean difference [MD] -1.90, 95% CI -2.53 to -1.27 minutes), shorter operating time (MD -11.40, 95% CI -16.55 to -6.25 minutes), lower estimated blood loss (MD -58.00, 95% CI -108.51 to
-7.49 mL), lower total dose of analgesia in the first 24 hours (MD -0.89, 95% CI -1.19 to -0.59), and shorter postoperative maternal hospital stay (MD -1.50, 95% CI -2.16 to -0.84 days) [6]. Many practitioners continue to
prefer the Pfannenstiel incision, in part because it is somewhat lower on the abdomen and therefore has a less negative cosmetic appearance.

In severely obese women, a supraumbilical transverse incision may be preferable to a suprapubic incision. (See "Cesarean delivery of the obese woman", section on 'Abdominal wall incision'.)

Vertical incision — Compared with transverse incisions, a vertical midline incision generally allows faster abdominal entry, causes less bleeding and superficial nerve injury, and can be easily extended cephalad if
more space is required for access. In a prospective cohort study including over 3500 emergency cesarean deliveries, that median incision to delivery interval was faster for vertical than transverse skin incisions (three versus
four minutes for primary cesareans and three versus five minutes for repeat cesareans), but neonatal outcomes were not improved, and some maternal and neonatal outcomes were worse in the vertical incision group (eg,
need for postpartum maternal transfusion [8.5 versus 5.3 percent], neonatal intubation in the delivery room [17 versus 13 percent]) [9]. The poorer outcomes were attributed to unidentified confounders since the choice of
skin incision is not independent of the indication for cesarean delivery.

In severely obese women, a supraumbilical vertical incision may be preferable to a subumbilical vertical incision. (See "Cesarean delivery of the obese woman", section on 'Abdominal wall incision'.)

Scalpel or electrocautery? — At all stages of the cesarean procedure, the author prefers using the scalpel for sharp dissection, rather than an electrocautery device, but there is no clear evidence of superiority for short-
or long-term outcomes between the two, and so surgeon's preference is reasonable. The body of evidence from randomized trials in general surgery patients [10-12] and a small trial in women undergoing repeat cesarean
[13] show that neither scalpel nor electrosurgery holds a clinically significant benefit over the other; either approach or a mixture of the two approaches is acceptable (see "Incisions for open abdominal surgery", section on
'Skin incision'). It is not necessary to change to a fresh scalpel blade after opening the abdomen, given that the rate of wound infection appears to be similar with a one-scalpel versus two-scalpel technique [14].

Subcutaneous tissue layer — There are no randomized trials comparing techniques for incision and dissection of the subcutaneous tissues at cesarean delivery. We prefer blunt dissection (with fingers) over sharp
dissection (with the knife), as blunt dissection has been associated with shorter operative times, less chance of injury to vessels, and less postoperative pain [15,16]. The tissue is opened from medial to lateral.

Fascial layer — A small transverse incision is usually made medially with the scalpel, and then extended laterally with scissors. Alternatively, the fascial incision can be extended bluntly by inserting the fingers of each hand
under the fascia and then pulling in a cephalad-caudad direction, which is part of the Joel-Cohen/Misgav-Ladach technique [5,15] (see 'Alternative techniques' below). A randomized trial of sharp versus blunt fascial incision
used each patient as her own control (sharp dissection for half the incision and blunt dissection for the other half) and found no difference in postoperative pain scores, but was too small to detect modest differences.

Rectus muscle layer — Rectus muscles can be separated bluntly in most cases. Transection of the muscles (ie, Maylard technique) is avoided, if possible, as leaving the muscles intact preserves muscle strength in the
early postoperative months; otherwise, there are no clear differences in outcome between the two techniques [17-19].

Dissection of the rectus fascia from the rectus muscles appears to be unnecessary, although commonly performed [15,16,20]. In one small randomized trial, non-dissection resulted in higher postoperative hemoglobin levels
and less pain [21].

Opening the peritoneum — We favor using fingers to bluntly open the peritoneum to minimize the risk of inadvertent injury to bowel, bladder, or other organs that may be adherent to the underlying surface, as in the Joel-
Cohen type approach [15,16,20]. However, a sharp technique is also acceptable. In a large randomized trial (CORONIS) that examined five elements of the cesarean delivery technique in intervention pairs, there was no
significant difference between blunt and sharp technique for the primary composite outcome of maternal death, infectious morbidity, further operative procedures, or blood transfusion >1 unit [22,23].

An extraperitoneal approach is another option. Most obstetricians are not familiar with this technique since it was used primarily in the pre-antibiotic era to decrease the risk of intraperitoneal infection. It requires a detailed
knowledge of the relationship between the fascial planes and the bladder and lower uterine segment. Theoretically, avoiding exposure of the peritoneal cavity to blood, amniotic fluid, vernix, and mechanical irritation can
potentially reduce nausea and vomiting, postoperative pain, voiding disturbances, and other side effects and complications of cesarean delivery. This hypothesis is supported by a small randomized trial that compared the
transperitoneal and extraperitoneal techniques and found the latter resulted in less intraoperative nausea and vomiting and less postoperative pain [24].

Avoiding visceral injury in patients with dense intraperitoneal adhesions — If there are dense adhesions between the anterior abdominal wall and the anterior surface of the uterus, we enter the peritoneum bluntly
and as close as possible to the upper abdomen to avoid these areas. Sharp dissection also may be needed, and should be performed cautiously using shallow incisions under direct vision. Other approaches are to start
laterally or use a paravesical or supravesical extraperitoneal approach to avoid dense midline adhesions [25].

A surgeon experienced in complex abdominal surgery should assist if meticulous dissection of dense adhesions involving important structures is needed. Insertion of ureteral stents can be useful to facilitate intraoperative
identification (and avoidance) of the ureters, but is rarely indicated for cesarean delivery. (See "Urinary tract injury in gynecologic surgery: Epidemiology and prevention", section on 'Prophylactic ureteral catheters'.)

If pelvic adhesions require extensive dissection with risk of injury to the bowel, urinary tract, or major blood vessels to expose the lower uterine segment, and the patient desires tubal ligation, we avoid or minimize
adhesiolysis and perform the hysterotomy in the most appropriate accessible location. A case report in which the entire length of the ventral aspect of the uterus and bladder was densely adherent to the rectus sheath
described extending a vertical incision in the abdominal wall above the level of the adhesions and then entering the uterine cavity through an incision across the fundus [26].

Ensuring adequate exposure — The full thickness abdominal wall incision should be adequate to allow easy delivery of the fetus. While there are no trials on this technical aspect of cesarean delivery, a 15 cm incision (the
size of a standard Allis clamp) is probably the minimal length that allows atraumatic and expeditious delivery of the term fetus [5] The surgeon and an assistant together can manually stretch apart the opening at the angles

1 of 15 5/11/2018, 1:08 PM
Cesarean delivery: Surgical technique - UpToDate https://www.uptodate.com/contents/cesarean-delivery-surgical-technique/...

of the incisions if needed, but additional sharp dissection may be necessary.

INTRAABDOMINAL PROCEDURES

Bladder flap — We do not routinely create a bladder flap. In a meta-analysis of four trials that randomly assigned women to undergo or not undergo development of a bladder flap at cesarean delivery, omitting this
procedure did not increase short-term adverse outcomes (bladder injury, blood loss, duration of hospitalization) and reduced the incision-to-delivery interval by 1.3 minutes [27]. The trials excluded very preterm and
emergency deliveries. These data are inadequate to definitively assess uncommon morbidities, such as bladder injury, or the long-term consequences of not creating a bladder flap, such as long-term bladder function.

A subsequent randomized trial found that urinary symptom scores at 6 to 8 weeks postpartum were similar whether or not a bladder flap was performed, but women who received a bladder flap had more bothersome urinary
symptoms [28].

Some obstetricians choose to selectively perform a bladder flap if a difficult delivery is anticipated, such as when the fetal head is deep in the pelvis or when the bladder is attached well above the lower uterine segment after
a previous cesarean delivery. In these cases, creation of the bladder flap may help to keep the bladder dome out of the surgical field if the uterine incision extends. In some patients, such as those who are not in labor, it may
not be possible to make an incision in the lower uterine segment without first creating a bladder flap.

The location of the bladder is best delineated by palpating the bladder catheter, if present. The demarcation between the lower and upper uterine segments is difficult to determine clinically, sonographically, or histologically.
The location or level of the demarcation also changes based on the clinical situation.

Hysterotomy

Choice of incision — The uterine incision is usually transverse but may be vertical; no randomized trials have compared the two techniques. The principal consideration is that the incision must be large enough to allow
atraumatic delivery of the fetus. Factors to consider include the position and size of the fetus, location of the placenta, presence of leiomyomas, development of the lower uterine segment, and future pregnancy plans. Small
comparative studies of transverse and vertical incisions have not reported a difference in incision to delivery time or short-term maternal and infant outcomes between the two techniques [29,30]. However, if the woman has
a subsequent pregnancy, she may be at higher risk of uterine rupture if she has a low vertical incision and chooses to undergo a trial of labor.

Prior to making a hysterotomy incision, the surgeon should be aware of the general location of the placenta and the fetal lie. This information helps in avoiding laceration of the placenta and in delivery of the fetus. If labor
has been prolonged and the head is deep in the pelvis, the lower uterine segment may be very thin and retracted superiorly. In these cases, it is important to avoid making the incision too inferiorly as it may transect the
cervix or vagina.

Transverse incision — For most cesarean deliveries, we recommend making a transverse incision along the lower uterine segment (ie, Monro Kerr or Kerr incision). Compared with vertical incisions, advantages of
the transverse incision include less blood loss, less need for bladder dissection, easier reapproximation, and a lower risk of rupture in subsequent pregnancies [5]. It is the best incision for women who are planning another
pregnancy and may attempt a trial of labor in that pregnancy. (See "Choosing the route of delivery after cesarean birth", section on 'One prior low transverse uterine incision' and "Choosing the route of delivery after
cesarean birth", section on 'Prior low vertical uterine incision'.)

The major disadvantage of the transverse incision is that significant lateral extension is not possible without risking laceration of major blood vessels. A "J" or inverted "T" extension is often required if a larger incision is
needed. This can be problematic because the "J" extension goes into the lateral fundus and the angles of the inverted "T" incision are poorly vascularized. Both the J and T incisions potentially result in a weaker uterine scar,
which is a concern if the patient has a subsequent pregnancy.

Low vertical and classical incisions — There are two types of vertical incisions: the low vertical (Kronig, DeLee, or Cornell) and the classical vertical. The low vertical is performed in the lower uterine segment and
appears to be as strong as the low transverse incision [31]. The major disadvantage of the low vertical incision is the possibility of extension cephalad into the uterine fundus or caudally into the bladder, cervix, or vagina. It is
also difficult to determine whether the low vertical incision is truly low, as the separation between lower and upper uterine segments is not easily identifiable.

A vertical incision that extends into the upper uterine segment/fundus is termed a classical incision. This incision is rarely performed at or near term because in subsequent pregnancies it is associated with a higher
frequency of uterine dehiscence/rupture (4 to 9 percent) compared with low vertical (1 to 7 percent) and low transverse (0.2 to 1.5 percent) incisions; it is also associated with more maternal morbidity [32,33]. (See "Uterine
rupture after previous cesarean delivery".)

Whether a vertical incision is confined to the lower, noncontractile portion of the myometrium (low vertical) or extends into the upper contractile portion of the myometrium (classical) is a subjective assessment; an objective
method for differentiating between the two types of uterine incisions has not been determined. However, if the incision extends to the level or near the level of the round ligament insertion, it should definitively be considered
classical.

The generally accepted indications for considering a vertical uterine incision are:

● Poorly developed lower uterine segment when more than normal intrauterine manipulation is anticipated (eg, extremely preterm breech presentation, back down transverse lie).

● Lower uterine segment pathology that precludes a transverse incision (eg, large leiomyoma, anterior placenta previa or accreta).

● Densely adherent bladder.

● Postmortem delivery.

● Delivery of a very large fetus (eg, anomalous, extreme macrosomia) when there is high risk of extension of a transverse incision into uterine vessels or a T or J extension may be required to extract the fetus.

Procedure — Hysterotomy is begun by making a small incision with a scalpel. Various techniques are used to minimize the risk of fetal injury while making this incision. All involve elevating and carefully thinning the inner
myometrial and decidual layers to minimize bleeding, maximize exposure, and promote separation of the uterine tissue from the fetal membranes or skin.

After the initial incision on the uterus has been made with the scalpel, and most of the uterine wall has been cut, we prefer to enter the uterine cavity with the index finger of the dominant hand of the surgeon, in a blunt
fashion. This is effective >90 percent of the time in our experience, and avoids any risks of fetal injury with a sharp instrument. If this is not easily accomplishable, the next steps may be helpful:

● Consider applying Allis clamps to the superior and inferior edges of the myometrial incision and elevate them, as needed.

● Remove the suction tip and directly apply the end of the suction tubing to the center of the myometrial incision to balloon out and thin out this layer while providing easily identifiable, relatively blood-free exposure. If
possible, leave the membranes intact until complete extension of the incision.

Expanding the incision — After the uterine cavity is entered, the hysterotomy incision is extended using blunt expansion with the surgeon's fingers or bandage scissors. We recommend blunt expansion because it is
fast and has less risk of inadvertent trauma to the fetus. Extending the uterine incision transversely by pulling vertically (cephalocaudal) with the index fingers also reduces the risk of unintended extension and excessive
blood loss [20,34]. In a 2014 systematic review/meta-analysis of six randomized trials of blunt versus sharp hysterotomy, blunt expansion resulted in a lower rate of unintended extensions (pooled relative risk [RR] 0.47, 95%
CI 0.28-0.79) and a lower drop in hemoglobin and hematocrit postpartum, and shortened operative time by two minutes [35].

Uterine stapler — We do not use the auto stapler. A meta-analysis of two small randomized trials did not show any benefits over conventional sharp dissection [36]. This technique should be reserved, if used at all, for
rare indications (eg, ex utero intrapartum treatment [EXIT] procedure).

Fetal extraction — The fetus should be extracted expeditiously and nontraumatically. Most studies, but not all [37,38], have reported a direct association between a prolonged uterine incision-to-delivery time and lower fetal
blood gas pH values and Apgar scores, regardless of type of anesthesia [39]. The mechanism is thought to be hysterotomy-induced increased uterine tone, which can interfere with uteroplacental blood flow.

Extraction of the fetus at cesarean is usually uncomplicated. For fetuses in cephalic presentation, the key points are getting the obstetrician's fingers around the curvature of the head for leverage, lifting without overly flexing
the wrist, and using the lower uterine segment as a fulcrum, which, if done improperly, can lead to extensions of the hysterotomy incision. The obstetrician usually inserts his/her dominant hand through the hysterotomy
incision and around the top of the fetal head. Standing on a stool may be helpful. Using the fingers and palm, the head is gently elevated and flexed to bring the occiput into the open hysterotomy, and then guided through
the incision, aided by modest transabdominal fundal pressure from the other hand or an assistant, as needed (figure 2). The shoulders are then delivered using gentle traction to guide one, and then the other, through the
hysterotomy, using fundal pressure as needed; the rest of the body should follow easily.

Extreme prematurity, a deeply impacted or floating fetal head, or an abnormal lie can make fetal extraction difficult. The approach to difficult fetal extraction is reviewed separately. (See "Management of deeply engaged and
floating fetal presentations at cesarean delivery".)

Cord clamping — Delayed, rather than immediate, cord clamping of vigorous newborns results in higher neonatal hemoglobin levels and iron stores and facilitates the fetal to neonatal transition. It appears to be particularly
beneficial for preterm newborns, but is recommended for term newborns as well. The major disadvantage is an increased need for phototherapy for jaundice. The delay should be at least 30 to 60 seconds and ideally the
cord clamp is applied following onset of respiration. (See "Management of normal labor and delivery", section on 'Cord clamping'.)

Care of the newborn — An appropriately trained clinician should be present to care for the newborn [40]. The degree of training depends on the risk for neonatal complications. (See "Overview of the routine management of
the healthy newborn infant".)

Early skin to skin contact between mother and newborn appears to promote breastfeeding and may help with physiological stabilization [41].

Placental extraction — We do not drain any residual blood in the placenta and cord before extraction. There is only limited evidence that it is beneficial: In a small trial, draining the placenta passively or actively prior to
extraction resulted in less fetomaternal transfusion [42]. However, the clinical significance of this finding (ie, frequency of alloimmunization) was not evaluated.

We suggest gentle traction on the cord and use of oxytocin to enhance uterine contractile expulsive efforts and allow spontaneous placental expulsion, rather than manual extraction. In a systematic review of randomized

2 of 15 5/11/2018, 1:08 PM
Cesarean delivery: Surgical technique - UpToDate https://www.uptodate.com/contents/cesarean-delivery-surgical-technique/...

trials, manual extraction resulted in a higher rate of postoperative endometritis (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.42-1.90), greater blood loss (weighted mean difference 94 mL, 95% CI 17-172 mL), a higher rate of blood loss over 1000
mL (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.11-2.28), and lower postpartum hematocrit [43]. It is hypothesized that spontaneous expulsion allows the uterus time to contract and thus close myometrial sinuses. It also avoids potential
contamination of open sinuses from any bacteria on the surgeon's gloves, although this does not appear to be clinically significant since changing gloves before manual removal of the placenta does not reduce the risk of
endometritis [44].

To ensure that the entire placenta has been removed, the uterus is usually wiped with a gauge sponge to remove any remaining membranes or placental tissue. This maneuver may also stimulate uterine contraction.

PREVENTION OF POSTPARTUM HEMORRHAGE — Uterine contraction is the main mechanism for reduction of uterine bleeding. The uterus is massaged and oxytocin is administered intravenously to promote uterine
contraction and involution. (See "Anesthesia for cesarean delivery", section on 'Prevention of postpartum hemorrhage'.)

Postpartum hemorrhage is an obstetric emergency. Management is reviewed in detail separately. (See "Postpartum hemorrhage: Management approaches requiring laparotomy".)

UTERINE CLOSURE

Exteriorizing the uterus — We, and many others, generally exteriorize the uterus to improve exposure and facilitate closure of the hysterotomy. Both personal preference and individual clinical circumstances should guide
this decision.

A 2015 meta-analysis of randomized trials of extraabdominal (exteriorized) versus intra-abdominal (in situ) repair found no clinically significant differences in blood loss, intraoperative nausea, vomiting, return of bowel
function, or pain between the two approaches, although some statistical differences were noted [45]. A previous meta-analysis by another group reported that exteriorization resulted in lower febrile morbidity (relative risk
[RR] 0.41, 95% CI 0.17-0.97) and longer hospital stay (weighted mean difference 0.24 days, 95% CI 0.08-0.39), but no difference in duration of surgery [46].

Our approach — We usually perform a two-layer, continuous closure with delayed absorbable synthetic suture incorporating all of the muscle to avoid bleeding from the incision edges. (See 'Choice of suture' below and
'Single- versus double-layer closure of lower uterine segment incisions' below.)

The endometrial layer should probably be included in the full thickness myometrial closure. This opinion is based on a randomized trial that assigned 78 term pregnant patients delivered by cesarean to one layer myometrial
closure either including or excluding the endometrial layer [47]. The frequency of a wedge-type healing defect on ultrasound six weeks postpartum was significantly lower in the group that had full thickness suturing (45
versus 69 percent). Outcomes in subsequent pregnancies were not evaluated, so the clinical significance of this finding is unknown.

Use of blunt (rounded tip) needles during closure is associated with similar maternal outcomes as use of sharp (tapered point) needles [48], and is much safer for the surgeon (glove perforation rate RR 0.45, 95% CI
0.37-0.54 [49]). However, blunt-tip needles perform less well surgically than sharp needles.

We do not use locking sutures unless arterial bleeding is evident. No convincing evidence is available to guide choice of technique (eg, continuous [locked or nonlocked] versus interrupted) [36].

Choice of suture — Choice of suture is largely based on personal preference. In a large randomized trial (Caesarean section surgical techniques [CORONIS]), choice of suture material (eg, chromic catgut versus
delayed absorbable synthetic [eg, polyglactin 910, poliglecaprone 25]) did not result in statistically significant differences in maternal outcome [22,23].

A 0-delayed absorbable synthetic monofilament (eg, Monocryl) or braided (eg, Vicryl) suture is commonly used in the United States. Barbed suture has been used successfully for knotless closure of myomectomy incisions
[50-52] and skin closure of the Pfannenstiel incision during cesarean delivery [53].

Single- versus double-layer closure of lower uterine segment incisions — As discussed above, we generally perform a two-layer rather than a single-layer uterine closure, but use a single-layer closure when a tubal
ligation is performed concurrently. Given the available data (see below), either a one- or two-layer closure technique is within acceptable standards of medical practice. If a single-layer closure is performed to save time, we
suggest an unlocked technique [54-57]. A double (or even triple)-layer closure may be necessary when the myometrium is thick, such as with a classical and some low vertical incisions.

Short-term maternal outcomes are similar for single- and double-layer closure, except a single-layer closure takes less time. In a 2014 systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies, single- and double-layer
hysterotomy closure resulted in similar rates of overall maternal infectious morbidity, endometritis, wound infection, and blood transfusion, but operative time was six minutes shorter with the single-layer closure (20 studies
including almost 15,000 patients) [58].

Over the long term, however, uterine rupture in the next pregnancy is a potential risk of single-layer closure. In a 2017 systematic review and meta-analysis of nine randomized trials (3969 pregnancies), single- and double-
layer uterine incision closure resulted in a similar incidence of cesarean scar defects (25 and 43 percent, respectively; RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.36-1.64), uterine dehiscence (0.4 and 0.2 percent, respectively; RR 1.34, 95% CI
0.24-4.82), and rupture in a subsequent pregnancy (0.1 percent for both; RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.05-5.53), but single-layer closure resulted in thinner residual myometrial thickness on postpartum ultrasound (mean difference
-2.19 mm, 95% CI -2.80-1.57) [59]. Available data were of low quality due to imprecision and indirectness and thus do not provide convincing evidence of safety or harm.

The technique used for the single-layer closure may be a contributing factor. Compared with an unlocked closure, locked closure has been associated with higher occurrence of surrogate markers of scar weakness (thinner
myometrial thickness, bell-shaped uterine wall defects) [54,55] and dehiscence/rupture [56]. As discussed above, inclusion of the decidua/endometrium (full thickness suturing technique) appears to be another factor that
impacts scar strength [47]. However, available data are limited by heterogeneity in criteria for diagnosis of uterine scar defects, length of follow-up, method of follow-up, and closure technique, as well as lack of randomization
for the primary outcome and the low number of uterine ruptures.

There is also a paucity of data on other long-term outcomes. A secondary analysis of data from a prospective study of women undergoing repeat cesarean delivery observed an increased risk of bladder adhesions in women
who had undergone single-layer closure [60]. Further study of possible adverse consequences of single-layer closure is warranted.

Closure of a classical incision — No trials have compared techniques for closure of the thick myometrium of the fundus. We use continuous sutures to close the inner myometrial layer; others prefer interrupted sutures,
including interrupted vertical figure of eight sutures. It is useful to have an assistant manually reapproximate the incision by pushing the myometrium on each side toward the midline as each suture is placed and tied. This
reduces tension on the incision and helps prevent the suture from tearing through the myometrium, especially when closing the first layer. The mid-portion of the thick myometrial layer is closed with a second line of sutures,
leaving approximately 1 cm of outer myometrium still open. We then close the serosa and outer layer using a baseball stitch, which is hemostatic and minimizes exposed raw surfaces, and thus may reduce adhesions (figure
3). The baseball stitch is a continuous, unlocked stitch in which the needle is driven through the cut edge of the myometrium to exit the serosa a few millimeters from the incision for each needle bite. This brings the serosal
surfaces together to cover the infolded edges of the incision.

Unnecessary procedures

Cervical dilation — Routine manual/instrumental cervical dilatation before closing the uterus is unnecessary in both laboring and non-laboring women. Controlled studies have reported that this practice does not improve
postoperative hemoglobin levels or reduce the incidence of fever or wound infection [61].

Uterine irrigation — We do not irrigate the uterus before closure. For prevention of postoperative infection, there is no strong evidence that uterine irrigation with an antibiotic solution is more effective or advantageous
compared with preincision parenteral antibiotic prophylaxis [62].

ABDOMINAL WALL CLOSURE — The abdominal cavity should be inspected before closing the abdomen to ensure that hemostasis has been achieved. Retroperitoneal enlargement or bulging of the broad ligament can be
signs of retroperitoneal hemorrhage; the abdomen should not be closed until the possibility of ongoing retroperitoneal bleeding has been excluded.

Fascia — The method of fascial closure is a critical aspect of incisional closure, as the fascial closure provides most of the wound strength during healing. Care should be taken to avoid placing too much tension on the
fascia since reapproximation, not strangulation, is the goal. Difficulty with hemostasis is usually not a major issue. Meta-analyses of randomized trials of closure of midline abdominal fascial incisions suggest the optimal
approach involves use of:

● A continuous (not interrupted) technique [63,64]

● Slowly (not rapidly) absorbable suture [63]

● Mass (not layered) closure [64]

● Suture length to wound length ratio of 4 to 1 [64]

Classically, sutures have been placed approximately 1 cm from the edge of the incision and 1 cm apart, without excessive tension. However, in a large randomized trial including non-cesarean surgeries (pregnant women
excluded), a technique of 5 mm tissue bites and 5 mm inter-suture spacing limited to the aponeurosis and using a 2-0 suture on a small needle resulted in fewer incisional hernias at one year than the classic 1 cm by 1 cm
technique (13 versus 21 percent [35/277 versus 57/277]; odds ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.31-0.87) [65]. We have not changed our midline closure technique as this approach has not been validated in pregnant women.

The majority of fascial closures after cesarean delivery involve a transverse fascial incision and no randomized trials have evaluated the optimum closure technique in this setting. For transverse fascial incisions, a
continuous nonlocking closure with slowly absorbable #1 braided suture is a common approach among general surgeons [66]. Obstetricians also commonly use this technique with 0 or 1 braided suture (eg, polyglactin 910).
Polydioxanone has also been used successfully for closure of transverse fascial incisions [2]. A randomized trial of closure techniques for repair of transverse incisions of abdominal fascia in rabbits found that interrupted
closure had a greater maximum tensile strength than continuous closure during the first two postoperative weeks, but both repair methods had similar maximum tensile strength at four postoperative weeks [67]. (See
"Principles of abdominal wall closure", section on 'Fascia' and "Complications of abdominal surgical incisions", section on 'Prevention'.)

Subcutaneous tissue — Subcutaneous tissue closure appears to benefit women undergoing cesarean delivery, but available evidence is low quality [68]. We close the subcutaneous adipose layer with interrupted delayed-
absorbable sutures if the layer is ≥2 cm [69,70]. In a 2004 meta-analysis of randomized trials, suture closure of the subcutaneous adipose layer at cesarean delivery decreased the risk of subsequent wound disruption by
one-third in women with subcutaneous tissue depth ≥2 cm, but not in those <2 cm [70]. Closure of the dead space seems to inhibit accumulation of serum and blood, which can lead to a wound seroma or hematoma and
subsequent wound breakdown [70,71]. This occurrence is a major cause of morbidity, can be costly, and lengthens recovery time. Although placing suture material in the subcutaneous tissue theoretically could increase the
risk of wound infection, an increase has not been documented [68,69].

3 of 15 5/11/2018, 1:08 PM
Cesarean delivery: Surgical technique - UpToDate https://www.uptodate.com/contents/cesarean-delivery-surgical-technique/...

The value of irrigation before closure of the subcutaneous tissues has not been studied in a randomized trial, and is probably unnecessary after routine intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis.

Unnecessary procedures

Abdominal irrigation — We do not irrigate the abdomen before closing the abdominal wall. Intra-abdominal irrigation does not reduce maternal infectious morbidity beyond the reduction achieved with prophylactic
intravenous antibiotics alone [72,73]. In one trial, irrigation significantly increased intraoperative nausea, and did not result in any benefits (no reduction in estimated blood loss, operating time, intrapartum complications,
hospital stay, return of gastrointestinal function, or infectious complications) [73].

Adhesion barriers — The body of available evidence does not support the routine use of adhesion barriers in women undergoing cesarean delivery [74-76].

Formation of adhesions is common after cesarean delivery; rates of 11 to 70 percent have been reported [77]. The rate of bowel obstruction after cesarean delivery is much lower, ranging from 0.5 to 9 per 1000 cesarean
deliveries, with the highest risk in women who have undergone multiple cesarean deliveries [77-79].

It has been estimated that women increase their risk of small bowel obstruction by 0.1 percent by undergoing cesarean delivery and that adhesion barriers may mitigate this risk by 50 percent [80]. Based on these
assumptions, 2000 women would need to have an adhesion barrier placed at cesarean delivery to avoid one bowel obstruction and the cost per small bowel obstruction averted would be several hundred thousand dollars. In
the only randomized trial, 753 women undergoing primary or repeat cesarean delivery were assigned to receive or not receive an adhesion barrier (sodium hyaluronic acid-carboxymethylcellulose) [81]. At the subsequent
delivery (n = 172 women), 76 percent of women in both groups had adhesions; severe adhesions were more common in the barrier group (33.3 versus 15.5 percent, p = 0.052). Neither group experienced a bowel
obstruction.

Reapproximation of the peritoneum — We do not close the visceral or parietal peritoneum because it saves time and there is no convincing evidence of harm (increased adhesion formation).

In a 2014 meta-analysis of randomized trials, visceral and peritoneal non-closure decreased operative time by an average of approximately 6 minutes [82]. In addition, a large, well-designed trial that randomly assigned 533
women at primary cesarean to peritoneal non-closure or closure found no significant difference between groups in the proportion of patients with adhesions at any site or time from incision to delivery at repeat cesarean (n =
97 repeat cesareans) [83]. Strengths of this trial include that its primary objective was to examine adhesion formation at a repeat cesarean delivery, use of an adhesion scoring system, exclusion of patients who had had prior
pelvic or abdominal surgery, use of a standard technique for performing the cesareans, and blinding the surgeon performing the repeat cesarean to patient allocation.

However, the effect of non-closure on adhesion formation remains unclear because of the small number of patients who have undergone follow-up at a second cesarean delivery. Non-closure might allow the enlarged uterus
to adhere to the anterior abdominal wall or impede spontaneous closure of the peritoneum, while closure might cause a foreign body reaction to sutures and tissue damage. In a 2009 systematic review of prospective
observational studies of peritoneal non-closure at cesarean delivery, non-closure was associated with greater adhesion formation than closure of the parietal layer or both visceral and parietal layers (OR 2.6, 95% CI
1.48-4.56; three studies, n = 249) [84]. The studies were included if the primary objective was to examine adhesion formation at a repeat cesarean delivery, had a clear study design, had an adhesion scoring system, and
excluded patients who had adhesions at the primary cesarean or who had interim surgeries after the primary cesarean. Many studies were excluded from this review because of poor methodologic design or clinical
heterogeneity. However, a 2011 systematic review that included many of these excluded observational studies also found that non-closure was associated with greater adhesion formation [85].

Reapproximation of rectus muscles — We and most other clinicians believe that the rectus muscles reapproximate naturally and suturing them together may cause unnecessary pain when the woman starts to move
after surgery [5]. No randomized trial has evaluated rectus muscle closure versus non-closure. A prospective observational study reported a reduction in dense adhesion formation when the rectus muscles were
reapproximated; however, this study did not assess pain or hematoma formation potentially related to this intervention and could not fully adjust for other intraoperative interventions, such as peritoneal closure [86].

Drains — In a 2013 meta-analysis of randomized trials of wound drainage at cesarean delivery, routine use of wound drains was not beneficial [87]. Compared with no drain, routine use of drains does not reduce the
odds of seroma, hematoma, infection, or wound disruption. Additionally, restricted use of subrectus sheath drains offers no benefit in maternal infectious morbidity compared with liberal use [88]. These findings also apply to
obese women [89].

SKIN CLOSURE — We prefer to reapproximate the skin with subcuticular suture rather than staples. In a 2015 meta-analysis of randomized trials, women whose incisions were closed with suture had fewer wound
complications than those closed with staples (relative risk [RR] 0.49; 95% CI 0.28-0.87) [90]. The decrease in wound complications was largely due to fewer wound separations with sutured closure (RR 0.29; 95% CI
0.20-0.43); differences in infection, hematoma, seroma, and readmission rates were not significant. Cosmetic appearance, pain perception at discharge, and patient satisfaction were similar for both approaches. Suture
placement took 7 minutes longer than stapled closure, but the time involved to remove staples before or after hospital discharge also needs to be considered.

The best type of suture is unclear; most surgeons use poliglecaprone (monofilament) or polyglactin (braided). A randomized trial of 275 women who underwent scheduled or nonemergent cesarean delivery through a
Pfannenstiel skin incision found that poliglecaprone 25 resulted in a lower rate of overall wound complications compared with polyglactin 910 (8.8 versus 14.4 percent, RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.37-0.99), but the wide confidence
interval in this trial, as well as the lack of other randomized trials of this issue, preclude making a strong recommendation for one suture over the other at this time. Barbed sutures reduce closure time and may result in a
better cosmetic appearance, but data are limited and not from trials of cesarean delivery [91-94].

ALTERNATIVE TECHNIQUES — Several techniques to simplify the surgical approach, decrease operating time, and reduce postoperative morbidity have been proposed. It is impossible to assess which technical aspects
of a particular method of cesarean delivery are clearly advantageous because several aspects of the method are studied at the same time [95]. Furthermore, long-term outcomes have not been adequately evaluated.

The Pelosi [20] and Misgav Ladach (also known as modified Joel-Cohen or Joel-Cohen-Stark) (table 1) [15,16] approaches have incorporated many modifications of standard and Joel-Cohen techniques. As discussed
above, the Joel-Cohen type incision is associated with less fever, pain, use of analgesia, blood loss, operating time, and hospital days compared with the standard Pfannenstiel incision (see 'Skin incision' above) and, in one
randomized trial, the Joel-Cohen/Misgav Ladach method resulted in fewer patients with intraperitoneal adhesions at repeat cesarean delivery (11 percent versus 36 percent after standard Pfannenstiel-Kerr approach) [96].

The Pelosi technique is illustrated by the following photographs (picture 1A-C, 1C-D). There are no randomized trials comparing the Pelosi technique to other techniques.

SPECIAL POPULATIONS

Obese women — Specific issues for cesarean delivery of the obese woman are reviewed separately. (See "Cesarean delivery of the obese woman" and "Obesity in pregnancy: Complications and maternal management".)

INCIDENTAL FINDINGS AND PROCEDURES

Bandl's constriction — Bandl's ring is a constriction that forms between the upper contractile portion of the uterus and the lower uterine segment during labor. In twin pregnancies, it may develop between delivery of the
first and second twin. It is rare and often leads to cesarean delivery because of dystocia. At laparotomy, the upper and lower segments of the uterus are separated by a transverse thickened muscular band.

The optimum management of Bandl's ring noted at cesarean delivery is unclear. It is not an absolute indication for a vertical uterine incision because transecting the ring may not allow easy delivery of the fetus. If the fetus is
difficult to extract, nitroglycerin 50 to 200 mcg bolus intravenously may relax the uterus and facilitate delivery [97-99].

Tubal sterilization — (See "Postpartum sterilization".)

Myomectomy — (See "Pregnancy in women with uterine leiomyomas (fibroids)", section on 'Indications for myomectomy during pregnancy or at delivery'.)

Adnexal mass — (See "Adnexal mass in pregnancy", section on 'Adnexal mass at cesarean delivery'.)

Appendectomy — We recommend not performing elective appendectomy at cesarean delivery. It lengthens operative time and there is no strong evidence of benefit, but it also does not appear to be harmful [100]. One
group suggested consideration of selective appendectomy at the time of cesarean delivery in women at increased risk of having subsequent surgery to rule out appendicitis (eg, women with a palpable fecalith, abnormal
appearing appendix, or history of pelvic pain or endometriosis) [100].

Hernia repair — Although combined cesarean delivery and hernia repair have been reported [101,102], elective hernia repair should generally be deferred for at least four weeks postpartum to allow the lax abdominal wall
to return to its baseline. (See "Overview of treatment for inguinal and femoral hernia in adults", section on 'Pregnancy'.)

SOCIETY GUIDELINE LINKS — Links to society and government-sponsored guidelines from selected countries and regions around the world are provided separately. (See "Society guideline links: Cesarean delivery".)

INFORMATION FOR PATIENTS — UpToDate offers two types of patient education materials, "The Basics" and "Beyond the Basics." The Basics patient education pieces are written in plain language, at the 5th to 6th grade
reading level, and they answer the four or five key questions a patient might have about a given condition. These articles are best for patients who want a general overview and who prefer short, easy-to-read materials.
Beyond the Basics patient education pieces are longer, more sophisticated, and more detailed. These articles are written at the 10th to 12th grade reading level and are best for patients who want in-depth information and are
comfortable with some medical jargon.

Here are the patient education articles that are relevant to this topic. We encourage you to print or e-mail these topics to your patients. (You can also locate patient education articles on a variety of subjects by searching on
"patient info" and the keyword(s) of interest.)

● Basics topics (see "Patient education: C-section (cesarean delivery) (The Basics)")

● Beyond the Basics topics (see "Patient education: C-section (cesarean delivery) (Beyond the Basics)")

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

● For the initial incision opening the abdomen, we suggest a transverse (eg, Pfannenstiel or Joel-Cohen) rather than a vertical skin incision (Grade 2C). A transverse incision is associated with better cosmetic appearance
and possibly less postoperative pain and greater wound strength than the vertical midline incision. However, the incision to delivery time appears to be approximately one minute faster with vertical skin incisions. (See
'Choice of incision' above.)

● A scalpel or electrocautery can be used for tissue dissection, based on the surgeon's preference. (See 'Scalpel or electrocautery?' above.)

4 of 15 5/11/2018, 1:08 PM
Cesarean delivery: Surgical technique - UpToDate https://www.uptodate.com/contents/cesarean-delivery-surgical-technique/...

● The fascial incision can be extended sharply or bluntly. (See 'Fascial layer' above.)

● We leave the rectus muscles intact rather than using the Maylard technique. This improves abdominal muscle strength in the short-term. (See 'Rectus muscle layer' above.)

● We use fingers to bluntly open the peritoneum to minimize the risk of inadvertent injury to bowel, bladder, or other organs that may be adherent to the underlying surface. However, a sharp technique is also acceptable.
(See 'Opening the peritoneum' above.)

● We do not routinely create a bladder flap. This saves time and reduces blood loss. (See 'Bladder flap' above.)

● For the hysterotomy, we suggest a low transverse rather than a low vertical incision for most women (Grade 2C). The low transverse incision is associated with less blood loss, less need for bladder dissection, is easier
to reapproximate, and has a lower risk of rupture in subsequent pregnancies. However, a low vertical hysterotomy is preferable in some settings, such as a poorly developed lower uterine segment or lower uterine
segment pathology. It also is preferable for delivery of a very large fetus (eg, anomalous, extreme macrosomia) when there is high risk of extension of a transverse incision into uterine vessels or a T or J extension may
be required to extract the fetus. (See 'Hysterotomy' above.)

● We suggest blunt rather than sharp expansion of the hysterotomy incision (Grade 2B). Blunt expansion is quick and has less risk of inadvertent trauma to the fetus, and may reduce blood loss and extension of the
incision. (See 'Hysterotomy' above.)

● We recommend spontaneous, rather than manual, extraction of the placenta (Grade 1A). Spontaneous extraction is associated with lower rates of endometritis and bleeding. (See 'Placental extraction' above.)

● Exteriorization or non-exteriorization of the uterus are both acceptable approaches. The choice depends on personal preference and the clinical setting. (See 'Exteriorizing the uterus' above.)

● For women who would consider a trial of labor after a previous cesarean delivery, we suggest a two-layer uterine closure rather than a one-layer closure (Grade 2C). (See 'Single- versus double-layer closure of lower
uterine segment incisions' above.)

● We suggest not closing the visceral or parietal peritoneum (Grade 2B). Non-closure saves time and there is no convincing evidence of harm (increased adhesion formation). (See 'Reapproximation of the peritoneum'
above.)

● For women with subcutaneous tissue depth ≥2 cm, we recommend closure of the subcutaneous tissue layer with sutures (Grade 1A). Closure decreases the risk of subsequent wound disruption. (See 'Subcutaneous
tissue' above.)

● In women who have received standard antibiotic prophylaxis, abdominal irrigation probably does not further reduce maternal infectious morbidity. Wound irrigation is also unlikely to be beneficial. (See 'Abdominal
irrigation' above and 'Subcutaneous tissue' above.)

● We recommend not routinely placing a subcutaneous drain (Grade 1B). Routine use of drains does not reduce the odds of seroma, hematoma, infection, or wound disruption. (See 'Drains' above.)

● We suggest reapproximation of the skin with subcuticular suture rather than staples (Grade 2C), but either technique is reasonable. (See 'Skin closure' above.)

Use of UpToDate is subject to the Subscription and License Agreement.

REFERENCES

1. Temmerman M. Caesarean section surgical techniques: all equally safe. Lancet 2016; 388:8.
2. Seiler CM, Deckert A, Diener MK, et al. Midline versus transverse incision in major abdominal surgery: a randomized, double-blind equivalence trial (POVATI: ISRCTN60734227). Ann Surg 2009; 249:913.
3. Brown SR, Goodfellow PB. Transverse verses midline incisions for abdominal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005; :CD005199.
4. Bickenbach KA, Karanicolas PJ, Ammori JB, et al. Up and down or side to side? A systematic review and meta-analysis examining the impact of incision on outcomes after abdominal surgery. Am J Surg 2013;
206:400.
5. Dahlke JD, Mendez-Figueroa H, Rouse DJ, et al. Evidence-based surgery for cesarean delivery: an updated systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 209:294.
6. Mathai M, Hofmeyr GJ. Abdominal surgical incisions for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; :CD004453.
7. Hofmeyr JG, Novikova N, Mathai M, Shah A. Techniques for cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 201:431.
8. Gizzo S, Andrisani A, Noventa M, et al. Caesarean section: could different transverse abdominal incision techniques influence postpartum pain and subsequent quality of life? A systematic review. PLoS One 2015;
10:e0114190.
9. Wylie BJ, Gilbert S, Landon MB, et al. Comparison of transverse and vertical skin incision for emergency cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115:1134.
10. Aird LN, Brown CJ. Systematic review and meta-analysis of electrocautery versus scalpel for surgical skin incisions. Am J Surg 2012; 204:216.
11. Ly J, Mittal A, Windsor J. Systematic review and meta-analysis of cutting diathermy versus scalpel for skin incision. Br J Surg 2012; 99:613.
12. Ahmad NZ, Ahmed A. Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of surgical scalpel or diathermy in making abdominal skin incisions. Ann Surg 2011; 253:8.
13. Elbohoty AE, Gomaa MF, Abdelaleim M, et al. Diathermy versus scalpel in transverse abdominal incision in women undergoing repeated cesarean section: A randomized controlled trial. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2015;
41:1541.
14. Hasselgren PO, Hagberg E, Malmer H, et al. One instead of two knives for surgical incision. Does it increase the risk of postoperative wound infection? Arch Surg 1984; 119:917.
15. Holmgren G, Sjöholm L, Stark M. The Misgav Ladach method for cesarean section: method description. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999; 78:615.
16. Wallin G, Fall O. Modified Joel-Cohen technique for caesarean delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 106:221.
17. Berthet J, Peresse JF, Rosier P, Racinet C. [Comparative study of Pfannenstiel's incision and transverse abdominal incision in gynecologic and obstetric surgery]. Presse Med 1989; 18:1431.
18. Giacalone PL, Daures JP, Vignal J, et al. Pfannenstiel versus Maylard incision for cesarean delivery: A randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 99:745.
19. Ayers JW, Morley GW. Surgical incision for cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 70:706.
20. Wood RM, Simon H, Oz AU. Pelosi-type vs. traditional cesarean delivery. A prospective comparison. J Reprod Med 1999; 44:788.
21. Kadir RA, Khan A, Wilcock F, Chapman L. Is inferior dissection of the rectus sheath necessary during Pfannenstiel incision for lower segment Caesarean section? A randomised controlled trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol
Reprod Biol 2006; 128:262.
22. CORONIS Collaborative Group, Abalos E, Addo V, et al. Caesarean section surgical techniques (CORONIS): a fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2013; 382:234.
23. CORONIS collaborative group, Abalos E, Addo V, et al. Caesarean section surgical techniques: 3 year follow-up of the CORONIS fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016; 388:62.
24. Tappauf C, Schest E, Reif P, et al. Extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal cesarean section: a prospective randomized comparison of surgical morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 209:338.e1.
25. Hibbard LT. Extraperitoneal cesarean section. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1985; 28:711.
26. Kroon N, Reginald PW. Parietal peritoneal closure at caesarean section revisited. J Obstet Gynaecol 2007; 27:159.
27. O'Neill HA, Egan G, Walsh CA, et al. Omission of the bladder flap at caesarean section reduces delivery time without increased morbidity: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod
Biol 2014; 174:20.
28. O'Boyle AL, Mulla BM, Lamb SV, et al. Urinary symptoms after bladder flap at the time of primary cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial (RTC). Int Urogynecol J 2018; 29:223.
29. Luthra G, Gawade P, Starikov R, Markenson G. Uterine incision-to-delivery interval and perinatal outcomes in transverse versus vertical incisions in preterm cesarean deliveries. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2013;
26:1788.
30. Schutterman EB, Grimes DA. Comparative safety of the low transverse versus the low vertical uterine incision for cesarean delivery of breech infants. Obstet Gynecol 1983; 61:593.
31. Shipp TD, Zelop CM, Repke JT, et al. Intrapartum uterine rupture and dehiscence in patients with prior lower uterine segment vertical and transverse incisions. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 94:735.
32. Patterson LS, O'Connell CM, Baskett TF. Maternal and perinatal morbidity associated with classic and inverted T cesarean incisions. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 100:633.
33. Magann EF, Chauhan SP, Bufkin L, et al. Intra-operative haemorrhage by blunt versus sharp expansion of the uterine incision at caesarean delivery: a randomised clinical trial. BJOG 2002; 109:448.
34. Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Di Naro E, et al. Blunt expansion of the low transverse uterine incision at cesarean delivery: a randomized comparison of 2 techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199:292.e1.
35. Saad AF, Rahman M, Costantine MM, Saade GR. Blunt versus sharp uterine incision expansion during low transverse cesarean delivery: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 211:684.e1.
36. Dodd JM, Anderson ER, Gates S, Grivell RM. Surgical techniques for uterine incision and uterine closure at the time of caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; :CD004732.
37. Andersen HF, Auster GH, Marx GF, Merkatz IR. Neonatal status in relation to incision intervals, obstetric factors, and anesthesia at cesarean delivery. Am J Perinatol 1987; 4:279.
38. Fontanarosa M, Fontanarosa N. Incision-to-delivery interval and neonatal wellbeing during cesarean section. Minerva Ginecol 2008; 60:23.
39. Bader AM, Datta S, Arthur GR, et al. Maternal and fetal catecholamines and uterine incision-to-delivery interval during elective cesarean. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 75:600.
40. Gordon A, McKechnie EJ, Jeffery H. Pediatric presence at cesarean section: justified or not? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193:599.

5 of 15 5/11/2018, 1:08 PM
Cesarean delivery: Surgical technique - UpToDate https://www.uptodate.com/contents/cesarean-delivery-surgical-technique/...

41. Moore ER, Bergman N, Anderson GC, Medley N. Early skin-to-skin contact for mothers and their healthy newborn infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 11:CD003519.
42. Leavitt BG, Huff DL, Bell LA, Thurnau GR. Placental drainage of fetal blood at cesarean delivery and feto maternal transfusion: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 110:608.
43. Anorlu RI, Maholwana B, Hofmeyr GJ. Methods of delivering the placenta at caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; :CD004737.
44. Atkinson MW, Owen J, Wren A, Hauth JC. The effect of manual removal of the placenta on post-cesarean endometritis. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 87:99.
45. Zaphiratos V, George RB, Boyd JC, Habib AS. Uterine exteriorization compared with in situ repair for Cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Anaesth 2015; 62:1209.
46. Jacobs-Jokhan D, Hofmeyr G. Extra-abdominal versus intra-abdominal repair of the uterine incision at caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; :CD000085.
47. Yazicioglu F, Gökdogan A, Kelekci S, et al. Incomplete healing of the uterine incision after caesarean section: Is it preventable? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006; 124:32.
48. Stafford MK, Pitman MC, Nanthakumaran N, Smith JR. Blunt-tipped versus sharp-tipped needles: wound morbidity. J Obstet Gynaecol 1998; 18:18.
49. Parantainen A, Verbeek JH, Lavoie MC, Pahwa M. Blunt versus sharp suture needles for preventing percutaneous exposure incidents in surgical staff. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; :CD009170.
50. Alessandri F, Remorgida V, Venturini PL, Ferrero S. Unidirectional barbed suture versus continuous suture with intracorporeal knots in laparoscopic myomectomy: a randomized study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2010;
17:725.
51. Greenberg JA, Einarsson JI. The use of bidirectional barbed suture in laparoscopic myomectomy and total laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2008; 15:621.
52. Peleg D, Ahmad RS, Warsof SL, et al. A randomized clinical trial of knotless barbed suture vs conventional suture for closure of the uterine incision at cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 218:343.e1.
53. Murtha AP, Kaplan AL, Paglia MJ, et al. Evaluation of a novel technique for wound closure using a barbed suture. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 117:1769.
54. Yasmin S, Sadaf J, Fatima N. Impact of methods for uterine incision closure on repeat caesarean section scar of lower uterine segment. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2011; 21:522.
55. Ceci O, Cantatore C, Scioscia M, et al. Ultrasonographic and hysteroscopic outcomes of uterine scar healing after cesarean section: comparison of two types of single-layer suture. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2012;
38:1302.
56. Roberge S, Chaillet N, Boutin A, et al. Single- versus double-layer closure of the hysterotomy incision during cesarean delivery and risk of uterine rupture. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2011; 115:5.
57. Bennich G, Rudnicki M, Wilken-Jensen C, et al. Impact of adding a second layer to a single unlocked closure of a Cesarean uterine incision: randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016; 47:417.
58. Roberge S, Demers S, Berghella V, et al. Impact of single- vs double-layer closure on adverse outcomes and uterine scar defect: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 211:453.
59. Di Spiezio Sardo A, Saccone G, McCurdy R, et al. Risk of Cesarean scar defect following single- vs double-layer uterine closure: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ultrasound Obstet
Gynecol 2017; 50:578.
60. Blumenfeld YJ, Caughey AB, El-Sayed YY, et al. Single- versus double-layer hysterotomy closure at primary caesarean delivery and bladder adhesions. BJOG 2010; 117:690.
61. Liabsuetrakul T, Peeyananjarassri K. Mechanical dilatation of the cervix at non-labour caesarean section for reducing postoperative morbidity. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; :CD008019.
62. Nabhan AF, Allam NE, Hamed Abdel-Aziz Salama M. Routes of administration of antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing infection after caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; :CD011876.
63. Diener MK, Voss S, Jensen K, et al. Elective midline laparotomy closure: the INLINE systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2010; 251:843.
64. Ceydeli A, Rucinski J, Wise L. Finding the best abdominal closure: an evidence-based review of the literature. Curr Surg 2005; 62:220.
65. Deerenberg EB, Harlaar JJ, Steyerberg EW, et al. Small bites versus large bites for closure of abdominal midline incisions (STITCH): a double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015; 386:1254.
66. Rahbari NN, Knebel P, Diener MK, et al. Current practice of abdominal wall closure in elective surgery - Is there any consensus? BMC Surg 2009; 9:8.
67. Maxwell GL, Soisson AP, Brittain PC, et al. Repair of transversely incised abdominal wall fascia in a rabbit model. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 87:65.
68. Pergialiotis V, Prodromidou A, Perrea DN, Doumouchtsis SK. The impact of subcutaneous tissue suturing at caesarean section on wound complications: a meta-analysis. BJOG 2017; 124:1018.
69. Anderson ER, Gates S. Techniques and materials for closure of the abdominal wall in caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; :CD004663.
70. Chelmow D, Rodriguez EJ, Sabatini MM. Suture closure of subcutaneous fat and wound disruption after cesarean delivery: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103:974.
71. Naumann RW, Hauth JC, Owen J, et al. Subcutaneous tissue approximation in relation to wound disruption after cesarean delivery in obese women. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 85:412.
72. Harrigill KM, Miller HS, Haynes DE. The effect of intraabdominal irrigation at cesarean delivery on maternal morbidity: a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 101:80.
73. Viney R, Isaacs C, Chelmow D. Intra-abdominal irrigation at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 119:1106.
74. Edwards RK, Ingersoll M, Gerkin RD, et al. Carboxymethylcellulose adhesion barrier placement at primary cesarean delivery and outcomes at repeat cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123:923.
75. Gaspar-Oishi M, Aeby T. Cesarean delivery times and adhesion severity associated with prior placement of a sodium hyaluronate-carboxycellulose barrier. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 124:679.
76. Walfisch A, Beloosesky R, Shrim A, Hallak M. Adhesion prevention after cesarean delivery: evidence, and lack of it. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 211:446.
77. Andolf E, Thorsell M, Källén K. Cesarean delivery and risk for postoperative adhesions and intestinal obstruction: A nested case-control study of the Swedish Medical Birth Registry. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010;
203:406.e1.
78. Silver RM, Landon MB, Rouse DJ, et al. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107:1226.
79. Al-Sunaidi M, Tulandi T. Adhesion-related bowel obstruction after hysterectomy for benign conditions. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108:1162.
80. Albright CM, Rouse DJ. Adhesion barriers at cesarean delivery: advertising compared with the evidence. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118:157.
81. Kiefer DG, Muscat JC, Santorelli J, et al. Effectiveness and short-term safety of modified sodium hyaluronic acid-carboxymethylcellulose at cesarean delivery: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016;
214:373.e1.
82. Bamigboye AA, Hofmeyr GJ. Closure versus non-closure of the peritoneum at caesarean section: short- and long-term outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; :CD000163.
83. Kapustian V, Anteby EY, Gdalevich M, et al. Effect of closure versus nonclosure of peritoneum at cesarean section on adhesions: a prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206:56.e1.
84. Cheong YC, Premkumar G, Metwally M, et al. To close or not to close? A systematic review and a meta-analysis of peritoneal non-closure and adhesion formation after caesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod
Biol 2009; 147:3.
85. Shi Z, Ma L, Yang Y, et al. Adhesion formation after previous caesarean section-a meta-analysis and systematic review. BJOG 2011; 118:410.
86. Lyell DJ, Caughey AB, Hu E, et al. Rectus muscle and visceral peritoneum closure at cesarean delivery and intraabdominal adhesions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206:515.e1.
87. Gates S, Anderson ER. Wound drainage for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; :CD004549.
88. CAESAR study collaborative group. Caesarean section surgical techniques: a randomised factorial trial (CAESAR). BJOG 2010; 117:1366.
89. Ramsey PS, White AM, Guinn DA, et al. Subcutaneous tissue reapproximation, alone or in combination with drain, in obese women undergoing cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105:967.
90. Mackeen AD, Schuster M, Berghella V. Suture versus staples for skin closure after cesarean: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212:621.e1.
91. Rubin JP, Hunstad JP, Polynice A, et al. A multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing absorbable barbed sutures versus conventional absorbable sutures for dermal closure in open surgical procedures. Aesthet
Surg J 2014; 34:272.
92. Koide S, Smoll NR, Liew J, et al. A randomized 'N-of-1' single blinded clinical trial of barbed dermal sutures vs. smooth sutures in elective plastic surgery shows differences in scar appearance two-years post-
operatively. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2015; 68:1003.
93. Sah AP. Is There an Advantage to Knotless Barbed Suture in TKA Wound Closure? A Randomized Trial in Simultaneous Bilateral TKAs. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473:2019.
94. Hammond DC. Barbed sutures in plastic surgery: a personal experience. Aesthet Surg J 2013; 33:32S.
95. Hofmeyr GJ, Mathai M, Shah A, Novikova N. Techniques for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; :CD004662.
96. Nabhan AF. Long-term outcomes of two different surgical techniques for cesarean. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2008; 100:69.
97. Chedraui PA, Insuasti DF. Intravenous nitroglycerin in the management of retained placenta. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2003; 56:61.
98. Jha S, Chiu JW, Yeo IS. Intravenous nitro-glycerine versus general anaesthesia for placental extraction--a sequential comparison. Med Sci Monit 2003; 9:CS63.
99. Lowenwirt IP, Zauk RM, Handwerker SM. Safety of intravenous glyceryl trinitrate in management of retained placenta. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1997; 37:20.
100. Pearce C, Torres C, Stallings S, et al. Elective appendectomy at the time of cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199:491.e1.
101. Gabriele R, Conte M, Izzo L, Basso L. Cesarean section and hernia repair: simultaneous approach. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2010; 36:944.
102. Ochsenbein-Kölble N, Demartines N, Ochsenbein-Imhof N, Zimmermann R. Cesarean section and simultaneous hernia repair. Arch Surg 2004; 139:893.

Topic 5405 Version 92.0

6 of 15 5/11/2018, 1:08 PM
Cesarean delivery: Surgical technique - UpToDate https://www.uptodate.com/contents/cesarean-delivery-surgical-technique/...

GRAPHICS

Skin incisions for cesarean delivery

The Pfannenstiel skin incision is slightly curved, 2 to 3 cm above the symphysis

pubis, with the midportion of the incision within the clipped area of the pubic
hair. The Joel-Cohen type incision is straight, 3 cm below the line that joins the
anterior superior iliac spines, and slightly more cephalad than Pfannenstiel.

Graphic 113066 Version 1.0

7 of 15 5/11/2018, 1:08 PM
Cesarean delivery: Surgical technique - UpToDate https://www.uptodate.com/contents/cesarean-delivery-surgical-technique/...

Uncomplicated cesarean delivery of fetus in cephalic presentation

Graphic 80515 Version 2.0

8 of 15 5/11/2018, 1:08 PM
Cesarean delivery: Surgical technique - UpToDate https://www.uptodate.com/contents/cesarean-delivery-surgical-technique/...

Baseball stitch

The baseball stitch is a continuous, unlocked stitch in which the needle is driven
through the cut edge of the myometrium to exit the serosa a few millimeters
from the incision for each needle bite. This brings the serosal surfaces together
to cover the infolded edges of the incision.

Graphic 113004 Version 1.0

9 of 15 5/11/2018, 1:08 PM
Cesarean delivery: Surgical technique - UpToDate https://www.uptodate.com/contents/cesarean-delivery-surgical-technique/...

Misgav Ladach technique (modified Joel-Cohen technique)

A straight transverse incision is cut only through the skin 3 cm below the level of the anterior superior iliac spines. By comparison, a traditional Pfannenstiel is curved and placed more inferiorly, about 3 cm above the pubic symphysis.

The subcutaneous tissues in the middle 3 cm of the incision are incised down to the fascia.

The fascia is opened transversely in the midline and the fascial incision is extended laterally in both directions using scissors placed underneath the subcutaneous adipose tissue, which is not cut with the scissors.

The rectus sheath is separated from the rectus muscles by pulling the sheath caudally and cranially using the two index fingers.

The peritoneum is opened by using one or two fingers to perforate the peritoneum and then the opening is stretched by pulling caudally and cranially with the fingers to create a transverse opening.

All layers of the abdominal wall are manually stretched laterally to both sides to provide an opening as large as the skin incision.

A transverse superficial incision is made through the visceral peritoneum 1 cm above the superior aspect of the bladder. The peritoneum with the bladder is reflected inferiorly using fingers or a swab.

A small transverse hysterotomy incision is made and extended laterally to both sides by pulling with the fingers.

The hysterotomy incision is closed with a one layer continuous locked stitch. A second layer is placed only if needed.

The visceral and parietal peritoneum are not reapproximated.

The fascia is reapproximated with a continuous running stitch.

The skin is reapproximated with two or three mattress stitches.

A key aspect of the Joel-Cohen approach is minimization of sharp dissection.

Data from: Holmgren G, Sjöholm L, Stark M. The Misgav Ladach method for cesarean section: method description. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999; 78:615.

Graphic 70112 Version 4.0

10 of 15 5/11/2018, 1:08 PM
Cesarean delivery: Surgical technique - UpToDate https://www.uptodate.com/contents/cesarean-delivery-surgical-technique/...

Abdominal incision in the Pelosi technique

(A) A low transverse suprapubic skin incision is made with a scalpel. The subcutaneous tissue
and rectus fascia are incised transversely with electrocautery knife; the subcutaneous tissue is
not stripped from the fascia beyond what is needed to expose the cut edges of the fascia.
(B) The linea alba is exposed by pulling up the superior edge of the abdominal incision. The
traditional dissection of the superior and inferior aspects of the fascia from underlying rectus and
pyramidal muscles is not routinely performed.
(C) To expose the peritoneum the rectus muscles are separated in the midline by vertical digital
dissection.
(D) The peritoneum is opened by finger perforation.
(E) The peritoneal opening is then extended digitally by vertical and lateral traction. When the
peritoneum can not be perforated or stretched digitally, a scalpel or scissors can be used.
(F) The full thickness of the abdominal incision is then stretched transversely using the surgeon's
fingers.

Courtesy of Marco Pelosi, MD and Marco Pelosi III, MD.

Graphic 82474 Version 4.0

11 of 15 5/11/2018, 1:08 PM
Cesarean delivery: Surgical technique - UpToDate https://www.uptodate.com/contents/cesarean-delivery-surgical-technique/...

Placement of the self-retaining abdominal retractor as part of the

Pelosi technique

(A) At left, the protractor (Weck Closure Systems); at right, the Mobius (Apple Medical
Corporation).
(B) The inner ring is squeezed cephalad into the peritoneal cavity.
(C) The inner ring springs open against the parietal peritoneum. A digital check is performed to
assure that no tissue is trapped between the inner ring and the abdominal wall. The plastic
sleeve is then placed on tension.
(D) The outer ring is rolled into the plastic sleeve until the ring completely inverts.
(E) The result is the creation of an atraumatic, circular, self-retaining area of retraction.
(F) A small transverse incision is made with the scalpel approximately 1 cm above the
vesicouterine peritoneal fold. The creation of the traditional bladder flap is avoided.

Courtesy of Marco Pelosi, MD and Marco Pelosi III, MD.

Graphic 68054 Version 3.0

12 of 15 5/11/2018, 1:08 PM
Cesarean delivery: Surgical technique - UpToDate https://www.uptodate.com/contents/cesarean-delivery-surgical-technique/...

Delivery and hysterotomy in the Pelosi cesarean technique

(A) A digital vertical extension of the hysterotomy incision is made. The vertical extension may
be more efficient than traditional transverse extension.
(B) The fetal head is delivered with the support of the surgeon's hand.
(C) When head extraction cannot be accomplished using one hand assisted by concomitant
fundal pressure, the soft vacuum cup can be employed.
(D) Breech delivery is accomplished using standard extraction maneuvers.
(E) Following spontaneous separation the placenta is removed by fundal pressure and light cord
traction.
(F) The hysterotomy is repaired either in situ using a single layer closure or by exteriorizing the
uterus and using a double layer closure. When needed, hemostatic individual figure-of-eight
sutures are also placed.

Courtesy of Marco Pelosi, MD and Marco Pelosi III, MD.

Graphic 59263 Version 3.0

13 of 15 5/11/2018, 1:08 PM
Cesarean delivery: Surgical technique - UpToDate https://www.uptodate.com/contents/cesarean-delivery-surgical-technique/...

Closure using Pelosi technique

(A) Exteriorization of the uterus through the abdominal incision is easily accomplished.
(B) Following completion of the hysterotomy closure, the self-retaining retractor is removed.
(C) The visceral and parietal peritoneum are not closed.
(D) No suture approximation of the rectus muscles is performed. The fascia is closed in a
continuous, non-locking fashion with delayed-absorbable sutures placed at least one cm from the
fascial wound edge (arrows).
(E) The subcutaneous tissue is not closed except when this layer is ≥2 cm thick. The skin is
closed with subcuticular sutures, or (F) metal staples.

Courtesy of Marco Pelosi, MD and Marco Pelosi III, MD.

Graphic 66859 Version 3.0

14 of 15 5/11/2018, 1:08 PM
Cesarean delivery: Surgical technique - UpToDate https://www.uptodate.com/contents/cesarean-delivery-surgical-technique/...

Contributor Disclosures
Vincenzo Berghella, MD Nothing to disclose Charles J Lockwood, MD, MHCM Nothing to disclose Vanessa A Barss, MD, FACOG Nothing to disclose

Contributor disclosures are reviewed for conflicts of interest by the editorial group. When found, these are addressed by vetting through a multi-level review process, and through requirements for references to be provided to
support the content. Appropriately referenced content is required of all authors and must conform to UpToDate standards of evidence.

Conflict of interest policy

15 of 15 5/11/2018, 1:08 PM